[ad_1]
CRITICISM: – A Minister of Health must tolerate a journalist like Fredrik Solvang confronting him with scientific uncertainty. Perhaps the Minister of Health has the same demand for fidelity to science as he does to the press, asks Einar Øverenget. Photography: Vidar Ruud, NTB / Høgskolen i Innlandet
What drives science is the same thing that maintains democracy: criticism, opposition, disagreement, opposition. We have just witnessed a minister who does not understand this very basic principle, both in terms of democracy and science.
This is a chronicle. The chronicle expresses the attitude of the writer. You can submit articles and discussion posts to VG here.
EINAR ÖVERENGET, Professor of Philosophy, Høgskolen i Innlandet
When NRK presenter Fredrik Solvang at the Debate emphasizes that “The National Institute of Public Health actually says that there is a weak scientific basis for recommending face masks,” it is not only correct – they have expressed it – therefore it is also a very timely question for a Minister of Health. A Minister of Health has great power, and when intrusive decisions are made, objective reasons should be expected.
The role of the press as the fourth state power is crucial in a democracy, and the role of the press in society is summarized in the Vær-varsom poster. Let me mention just two important points:
1.2. The press handles important tasks such as information, debate and social criticism. The press has a special responsibility to have different opinions expressed.
1.3. The press … cannot yield to pressure from anyone who wants to prevent open debate, the free dissemination of information.
also read
Solvang responds to Høie: – It is not his propaganda apparatus.
On this basis, it should be natural to expect that a Minister of Health will take the question as a starting point and explain why such an intrusive measure as mandatory bandaging is chosen when there is a weak scientific basis to recommend it.
Bent Høie did not do that. Instead, he responded as follows:
“Fredrik, you cannot create uncertainty about this. These are serious questions. The National Institute of Public Health is behind all the muzzle rules in Oslo. Period.”
In other words, instead of answering the question, the Minister of Health takes the liberty of stating that Solvang should not have asked the question. Solvang did not claim that FHI did not support the adopted rules, he wanted a comment that these rules are chosen even if a professional body that FHI considers has a weak scientific basis.
What are we witnessing here? What we are witnessing is that a member of the government really believes that the task of the press is not to create uncertainty about the decisions made by the government, rather than what its social mandate really is, which, among other things, is “not to yield to the pressure from anyone who wants to prevent open debate, the free dissemination of information.
What we are witnessing is precisely what is dangerous when fear forms the basis of politics, and that is that those in position get used to exercising power in a way that does not invite resistance, criticism and opposition. And, as I’ve pointed out several times, it doesn’t take long to get used to. We are not used to this in Norway, and we should not get used to it.
also read
High in the throat with NRK-Solvang: – These are serious questions
What we must get used to, and this applies especially to those who wield power, is that power is challenged with demands for objective reasons. In politics, this must be addressed by an opposition that constantly challenges those in position, so that those in position are constantly forced to present factual arguments and justify their decisions. Power must always be controlled by an opposition.
The job of the press is to help ensure that this happens – that, for example, the distribution of power and transparency really takes place – and that the opposition really exists. The latter is about the press raising criticism and disagreements, thus safeguarding its “responsibility to express different opinions.”
It is worrying that a minister does not show understanding for this and, instead, thinks that the task of the press is to be loyal to power. He is moving away from the rules of democracy and, in this context, the Minister is also dragging science towards something that is strongly unscientific.
When FHI is now endorsing the rules of mouth wrapping, there can be many reasons for that, but it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with science. And it’s not even necessarily objectionable.
Although it is a fact that FHI believes, or has at least meant to say, that there is a weak scientific basis for the use of face masks, of course it can happen, which can often be the case when you come into contact with politics, that He is pragmatic and supports a decision.
But when Høie dismisses the question by emphasizing that FHI endorses the rules of the bandage, he obscures this, and thus moves away from what science is: doubt, uncertainty, and criticism are the driving force behind science. No oblique security.
A Minister of Health should be able to demonstrate understanding for this and, indeed, endure facing scientific uncertainty. But it did not happen.
Who knows, perhaps the Minister of Health has the same demand for fidelity to science as to the press.
